Thursday, February 28, 2013

While working at the Detroit Tigers’ spring facility in Lakeland, Gov. Rick Scott announced today he will ask the Florida Legislature to set aside $5 million a year for projects specifically aimed at improving the Major League Baseball training facilities in the state.

“It’s my job as governor to make sure Florida remains the number one destination for spring training and that is why we will work to provide $5 million annually to only be used for spring training facilities,” Scott said in a statement that was released while Scott was participating in one of his “work days” with the Tigers at Joker Marchant Stadium in Lakeland.

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

16-year olds aren't even fully developed yet. Their pre-frontal cortexes (impulse control) are not fully formed. They are not adults in any sense, except they can somehow get plenty of booze, which appeals to their un-matured, un-fully-formed brain.

Why is that relevant? Most adult criminals have poor impulse control, and bad judgement.

As long as they have the ability to judge right from wrong, they can be tried for their crimes.

The Cypriot Parliament sent European Union (EU) and International Monetary Fund officials back to the drawing board on Tuesday by rejecting their controversial bailout package, reported The New York Times.

The plan, which was arranged over the weekend, would have taxed bank depositors as part of austerity measures meant to offset Cyprus’ national debt — the tax on depositers a novel approach as reported by NYT.

The unprecedented move angered Moscow, presumably because rich Russians often take recourse in Cyprus’ reportedly loose tax laws and laxity on things like money-laundering, according to NYT.

But The Washington Post saidCyprus President Nicos Anastasiades tried to limit legislative opposition by getting the so-called “troika” of EU negotiators to agree not tax the first €20,000 in deposits, even though this means the government’s probably wouldn’t have been able to scrape up the €5.8 billion needed for a bailout.

But his own party decided not to vote on the measure on Tuesday, reported NYT, saying their abstention “virtually assured” it wouldn’t pass.

Banks in Cyprus have been closed for a national bank holiday since Monday, but reports say their doors could remain shut for several more days in order to stave off a potential bank run as concerns grow over the European Union’s troubled economy.

Yes they were, or they couldn't have been convicted of the crime in the first place. Please try to follow along.

C'mon, read the freaking newspaper accounts.

One of the football players, Trent Mays, 17, who had been a quarterback, was sentenced to serve at least two years in the state juvenile system. The other, Ma’lik Richmond, 16, who had played wide receiver, was sentenced to serve at least one year. Both could end up in juvenile jail until they are 21, at the discretion of the State Department of Youth Services.

Mr. Mays’s minimum sentence is twice as long as Mr. Richmond’s because he was found to be delinquent beyond a reasonable doubt — the juvenile equivalent of guilty — not just of rape but also of distributing a nude image of a minor.

Where I am, the world is pretty shitty, and people are basically selfish and venal.

Sorry to hear that Snapper. The number of times I've been helped out by people who owed me absolutely nothing and who could get absolutely nothing in return always makes me think the best of society and rather optimistic about people generally. Are there exceptions? Of course. But those shitty exceptions - like Stuebenville - make the news not because they are common but for exactly the opposite reason.

...

I want to say this carefully because I really don't want to join the frequent anti-Catholicism comments here, from which you have taken an inordinate amount of ridiculous commentary, but I wonder how much the belief that man is born with original sin and needs the intervention of a savior feeds into what seems to me to be a fundamentally pessimistic view of people and the world in which we live.

Why is that relevant? Most adult criminals have poor impulse control, and bad judgement.

As long as they have the ability to judge right from wrong, they can be tried for their crimes.

That's why we hold adults to a greater responsibility and accountability and culpability. We hold they should be able to better control themselves (whether that has much basis is another thing).

Ability to control your impulses shouldn't be a factor? That's not what the law (or psychology) says.

Infants have uncontrollable bladders and bowels. Their ability to judge right from wrong doesn't come into it, and the ability of teenagers to judge right from wrong is not fully formed either--plus they deal with raging impulses. Impulse overrides that sense of right and wrong. Or as daniel kahneman might say: the thinking fast gets you into trouble before teh thinking slow can kick in. This is especially true with the young, whose brains are not fully formed, affecting their impulse control and their sense of right and wrong.

Yeah, the problem is that nobody really sets out to drink until they are unconscious. To get really drunk sure. But unconscious is one of those things that by the time you know what has happened, it's too late.

Sorry to hear that Snapper. The number of times I've been helped out by people who owed me absolutely nothing and who could get absolutely nothing in return always makes me think the best of society and rather optimistic about people generally. Are there exceptions? Of course. But those shitty exceptions - like Stuebenville - make the news not because they are common but for exactly the opposite reason.

I want to say this carefully because I really don't want to join the frequent anti-Catholicism comments here, from which you have taken an inordinate amount of ridiculous commentary, but I wonder how much the belief that man is born with original sin and needs the intervention of a savior feeds into what seems to me to be a fundamentally pessimistic view of people and the world in which we live.

I don't think it's a factor. I was a Catholic long before I became a pessimist.

I'm not saying that people don't do good, they do good all the time. I'm saying people aren't good. They'll do a wonderful charitable think one day, and then turn around and do an evil thing the next.

Yeah, the problem is that nobody really sets out to drink until they are unconscious. To get really drunk sure. But unconscious is one of those things that by the time you know what has happened, it's too late.

Do you think those boys set out to do what they did?

Non sequitur. They may or may not have set out to do what they did. They however, did make a very conscious and voluntary decision when they did commit those acts.

That's why we hold adults to a greater responsibility and accountability and culpability. We hold they should be able to better control themselves (whether that has much basis is another thing).

Ability to control your impulses shouldn't be a factor? That's not what the law (or psychology) says.

Infants have uncontrollable bladders and bowels. Their ability to judge right from wrong doesn't come into it, and the ability of teenagers to judge right from wrong is not fully formed either--plus they deal with raging impulses. Impulse overrides that sense of right and wrong. Or as daniel kahneman might say: the thinking fast gets you into trouble before teh thinking slow can kick in. This is especially true with the young, whose brains are not fully formed, affecting their impulse control and their sense of right and wrong.

You actually believe that's irrelevant?

If they know right from wrong, yes it's irrelevant. Not being able to control your evil impulses makes you a sociopath, not innocent.

They however, did make a very conscious and voluntary decision when they did commit those acts.

That's all well and good, except for the fact that their acts didn't get them in trouble. Not properly interpreting the victim's capacity to consent did. And that was anything but "conscious and voluntary."

I said I only want to use my hands. Obviously these young fellows are absolutely begging for a good thrashing from my educated fists given their heinous actions, so how much of a reduction in prosecutorial charges should I be entitled to given that they're clearly leading me on?

Actually, provocation does matter in terms of the severity of sentencing in assault cases. If it's significant enough, it can even absolve guilt. If you could actually demonstrate that their behavior was the sort that generally and reasonably provokes violence, that would probably help you.

As opposed to if someone actually raped me and I felt "just-plain-raped" rather than "a little bit," you mean? Not to mention that a fist is generally quite a bit larger than a penis, while a finger is quite a bit smaller.

And really, that's what's so obnoxious about this whole discussion, both here and in the media at large. It's always the presumed weaker person who is supposed to shoulder some blame, and naturally that person is never in the dominant group that sits back and tut-tuts that they really should be more careful.

Welcome to the real world, where things aren't always fair. I would rather acknowledge that reality than be unsafe.

If someone rear-ends me and I'm not wearing my seatbelt, I'm more likely to be injured. I didn't act with the greatest degree of responsibility. It's still just as much the other guy's fault; my culpability is additive, not subtractive. He doesn't get absolved of anything.

You can run your mouths about how these girls are shouldering blame for being victims of assault but you'll be quick to cry for the comforting embrace of Big Government if someone beats your ass because you weren't sufficiently demure, didn't yield on the sidewalk, flashed too much cash, or did any of a thousand factors every bit as mitigating to your own assault as having too many drinks with friends or wearing a tank top is for women.

I've never been sexually assaulted, but I did have an incident where a couple of older kids asked me to follow them into an alley when I was 11 or so. I was just a little too trusting, in part because, as a relatively big kid growing up in a safe neighborhood, I never really thought of myself as a victim. They threw me on the ground and punched and kicked me a few times before letting me go. They didn't take money or anything. To this day, I have no idea why they picked me.

The idea that I was foolish enough to follow them into an alley doesn't make them any less guilty. But I was foolish, and it would do me no service to pretend that I didn't do anything that contributed to the events of that day.

"If they know right from wrong, yes it's irrelevant. Not being able to control your evil impulses makes you a sociopath, not innocent."

It also makes you a person whose prefrontal cortex has not yet fully developed, which, again, has also to do with controlling good and evil. You go through the trouble of extensively quoting me, then just ignore the entire thing.

It also makes you a person whose prefrontal cortex has not yet fully developed, which, again, has also to do with controlling good and evil. You go through the trouble of extensively quoting me, then just ignore the entire thing.

I'm not ignoring you, I simply don't care.

99.9% of teenage males can control their impulses enough not to rape anybody. Those that can't are criminals.

Poor impulse control has never, and can never be a defense against criminal charges. The worst sociopaths are the ones with the least control, and the most in need of being incarcerated.

If a teenager can't control his impulses to commit violent crimes, he belongs in jail.

Not every parent does this, and so the thought that "well we tried and just telling boys not to rape girls doesn't work" is ridiculous. There is still parts of the world (pools of nasty) where rape is not really rape, unless maybe it involves a knife or something and that is what the evil feminists and liberals are trying to eliminate, and if we offend Sam and a few others, well gosh that is too darn bad. If it makes woman safer then I am OK with ticking off Sam.

Well I'm glad you big strong men are up there to keep them little ladies safe and sound, Father.

Sociopath? You keep using that word, as if it resolves the issue some way or other. Are people responsible for being sociopath. Or is that just another way of copping out of saying "evil".

So, what does that say about a teenage females lack of impulse control? Or very young children? Or babies? Or dogs?

This lack of impulse control I speak of, btw, is not psychological--it's organic.

If none of that matters, though, if you held that the ability to control impulses or acting wrt good and evil didn't matter, that would be an truly interesting position to take. How would you justify holding someone accountable--either legally or morally?

If they know right from wrong, yes it's irrelevant. Not being able to control your evil impulses makes you a sociopath, not innocent.

Beg the question much? If their brains aren't functioning properly, then they can not "know right from wrong" but ####### definition, you git. This is why I routinely punch you in the nuts. The question is "are brains of this physical development state capable of proper moral reasoning, in any real extent." Your answer simply avoids the question and posits a world of gods and monsters, because you like it better that way.

Sociopath? You keep using that word, as if it resolves the issue some way or other. Are people responsible for being sociopath. Or is that just another way of copping out of saying "evil".

So, what does that say about a teenage females lack of impulse control? Or very young children? Or babies? Or dogs?

This lack of impulse control I speak of, btw, is not psychological--it's organic.

If none of that matters, though, if you held that the ability to control impulses or acting wrt good and evil didn't matter, that would be an truly interesting position to take. How would you justify holding someone accountable--either legally or morally?

Very young children, babies and dogs don't know right from wrong. They can not make a moral judgement.

The ability to judge right from wrong is a precursor to moral action. If you don't know an act is wrong, you can't act immorally.

Once the person knows right from wrong, like teenagers, they are capable of moral action, and criminal action. If a person has no ability to control their impulses, they are insane, and need to be institutionalized.

The fact that someone, of whatever age, has more or less ability controlling their negative impulses doesn't reflect on morality or criminality. Of course this trait, like every other trait will vary among humans.

As long as the personal can control their impulses (i.e. they are not insane) they are morally required to do so, and criminally liable if they don't.

Beg the question much? If their brains aren't functioning properly, then they can not "know right from wrong" but ####### definition, you git. This is why I routinely punch you in the nuts. The question is "are brains of this physical development state capable of proper moral reasoning, in any real extent." Your answer simply avoids the question and posits a world of gods and monsters, because you like it better that way.

Are you serious? You want to argue that 16-17 y.o.'s aren't mentally capable of knowing rape is wrong?

99.9% of 16 y.o. males don't rape anyone. They can control their impulses. If these boys can't, they are either insane, or criminals. In either case they need to be locked up.

You want to argue that 16-17 y.o.'s aren't mentally capable of knowing rape is wrong?

You're asking the wrong question. I'm sure the two Ohio kids knew "rape" was "wrong." However, because of their age, they were unable to make the nuanced judgments separating "consent" from something less in the circumstances in which they found themselves adjudged.

Are you serious? You want to argue that 16-17 y.o.'s aren't mentally capable of knowing rape is wrong?

Not really. But I'm not going to sit idly by while you commit fallacy after fallacy just because you think it makes your farts smell pretty. You're begging the question. That's unacceptable form. Don't do that.

To the point of the Ohio case, as I've said earlier, I believe the testimony of the defendant who said he didn't think he was committing rape at the time. That doesn't mean he wasn't, legally or morally, but when he says he didn't think what he was doing was rape, I believe he is telling the truth. Because I'm not out for blood retribution like some of us.

I said I only want to use my hands. Obviously these young fellows are absolutely begging for a good thrashing from my educated fists given their heinous actions, so how much of a reduction in prosecutorial charges should I be entitled to given that they're clearly leading me on?

Actually, provocation does matter in terms of the severity of sentencing in assault cases.

So answer my question. These two "yutes" are clearly asking for a good hiding, so how much deference should I be granted by the state? I don't want to even pistol-whip them or anything. Just a routine beatdown, maybe choke one out and take some amusing photos of his unconscious carcass after I've stripped him. Seriously, I don't want to permanently hurt the guy.

As opposed to if someone actually raped me and I felt "just-plain-raped" rather than "a little bit," you mean?

You tell me. How much fist has to enter your unwilling ass before you personally felt raped?

Not to mention that a fist is generally quite a bit larger than a penis, while a finger is quite a bit smaller.

So how many fingers up your ass triggers your rape alarm? Does the involvement of a thumb change the calculus? Would a man with a finger-sized penis be incapable of raping you?

And really, that's what's so obnoxious about this whole discussion, both here and in the media at large. It's always the presumed weaker person who is supposed to shoulder some blame, and naturally that person is never in the dominant group that sits back and tut-tuts that they really should be more careful.

Welcome to the real world, where things aren't always fair. I would rather acknowledge that reality than be unsafe.

Would you acknowledge your reality by refusing to press charges if you ever gotten drunk and were unexpectedly sodomized by Mr. Fingerdick? In other words, is your opinion bolstered by your comparatively protected status, and would it change were you suddenly subject to the same standards and the unprotected classes?

If someone rear-ends me and I'm not wearing my seatbelt, I'm more likely to be injured. I didn't act with the greatest degree of responsibility. It's still just as much the other guy's fault; my culpability is additive, not subtractive. He doesn't get absolved of anything.

I believe in some states whether or not you're wearing a seatbelt does factor into assigning culpability for injury, but I'm no lawyer.

Are you asking to be rear-ended for kicks if you aren't? A video of your face bouncing off the steering wheel could be pretty funny. I mean, you'd need to be paid for the dented bumper.

I've never been sexually assaulted

It doesn't have to be sexual assault. Just get really drunk and instead of sodomizing you someone could put the boots to you. Drunks frequently enjoy a good stomping; both John L Sullivan and Jake Killrain drank alcohol between rounds of the last bare-knuckle championship fight in 1887. You're totally asking for it.

They threw me on the ground and punched and kicked me a few times before letting me go. They didn't take money or anything. To this day, I have no idea why they picked me.

I'm sure you were asking for it. You're lucky they didn't stick a finger in your ass. Maybe two.

The idea that I was foolish enough to follow them into an alley doesn't make them any less guilty. But I was foolish, and it would do me no service to pretend that I didn't do anything that contributed to the events of that day.

And these two teenage rapists are clearly contributing to any future assaults they might be on the receiving end of in their future as a result of their own foolishness. So are the kids who tweeted about it and passed around photos. And the ones who refused to talk to the police about the assault. You wouldn't fault anyone who decided to teach them a valuable lesson on the sanctity of personal space would you? I mean, clearly they're somewhat responsible for any future attacks on their person, there's no real reason to think otherwise. If people need to take responsibility for inducement to assault, I want to make sure the standards are applied uniformly and not just to the least empowered.

So how much reduction in prosecutorial zeal are we decent folk entitled to here?

To the point of the Ohio case, as I've said earlier, I believe the testimony of the defendant who said he didn't think he was committing rape at the time. That doesn't mean he wasn't, legally or morally, but when he says he didn't think what he was doing was rape, I believe he is telling the truth.

Would you acknowledge your reality by refusing to press charges if you ever gotten drunk and were unexpectedly sodomized by Mr. Fingerdick? In other words, is your opinion bolstered by your comparatively protected status, and would it change were you suddenly subject to the same standards and the unprotected classes?

Does this ranting drivel make sense to anyone else? It's just incoherent blather to me. It makes no sense as English.

Ignoring the substance of what someone posted, of what you quoted, is not a real sense a response.

Very young children, babies and dogs don't know right from wrong. They can not make a moral judgement.

That’s not what people who study babies and children tell us.

Once the person knows right from wrong, like teenagers, they are capable of moral action, and criminal action. If a person has no ability to control their impulses, they are insane, and need to be institutionalized.

Where are you getting this stuff? “No ability”? Who said that? And who said that is the definition of insanity?

The fact that someone, of whatever age, has more or less ability controlling their negative impulses doesn't reflect on morality or criminality.

That does reflect on morality and certainly on criminal culpability—you could look it up.

Of course this trait, like every other trait will vary among humans.

As long as the personal can control their impulses (i.e. they are not insane) they are morally required to do so, and criminally liable if they don't.

You don’t have nearly the prisons to house everyone who is lacking in impulse control

So answer my question. These two "yutes" are clearly asking for a good hiding, so how much deference should I be granted by the state?

Zero as you describe it. I don't place any value in your idea of provocation, the same way "she was wearing a tight skirt" or "she drank a lot" isn't provocation that should give a rapist deference.

If you were present at the moment the act was about to be committed and acted in defense of the victim, quite a bit.

You tell me. How much fist has to enter your unwilling ass before you personally felt raped?

Depends on how many drinks I've had.

Seriously? I'm not really equipped to answer that question, seeing as I have a complete lack of personal experience. I speculate that I'd call anything other than a phallic device an assault or violation, rather than rape. I would rather be raped than assaulted with something particularly large or violent.

Would you acknowledge your reality by refusing to press charges if you ever gotten drunk and were unexpectedly sodomized by Mr. Fingerdick? In other words, is your opinion bolstered by your comparatively protected status, and would it change were you suddenly subject to the same standards and the unprotected classes?

No, I would press charges. And I would expect justice. And I would deserve it. Yet I would take responsibility for making myself vulnerable enough to be in that situation in the first place and learn from it, and I'd suggest to other people before they were similarly victimized that they avoid placing themselves in comparable vulnerability. And I'd make sure not to provide a drop less sympathy to the victims of similar assaults, whether they contributed to the risk or not.

This is exactly the same standard I would have for a rape victim.

Are you asking to be rear-ended for kicks if you aren't? A video of your face bouncing off the steering wheel could be pretty funny. I mean, you'd need to be paid for the dented bumper.

You're arguing with a totally different position than the one I am taking. "Asking for it" never entered the equation. If I walk through the center of Manhattan at night with fistfuls of hundred dollar bills and my eyes closed, I'm not "asking" to be robbed. The robbers don't get some lesser sentence because I placed myself at more risk than I should have. I didn't deserve the robbery.

But I could have helped myself by exercising more care. I would advise someone not to behave that way. I think it's crappy that we live in a world where you can't just do that; nobody has a right to rob even the most careless person. But I'm not going to say that acknowledging that fact is blaming the victim.

You wouldn't fault anyone who decided to teach them a valuable lesson on the sanctity of personal space would you?

What, are you thick? I would absolutely fault someone who assaulted another person, even if they claimed provocation. Just like the rapists are absolutely faulted no matter how tight her dress was or how low her top was.

And then, even better, let's call them "trash" and "sub-human" and "rapist,"

Yeah, let's not call people who rape people "rapists". That would be mean.

Since several posters think legal definitions are paramount here in describing what happened, through 2011 the FBI, in compiling their annual crime statistics, would not have considered what happened in Steubenville as rape.

Which is why nobody here has done that. See also discussion on previous pages about penetration.

I don't know if it's dumb and stupid, but it's exactly what people have been doing throughout the thread.

Taken by itself, hard core porn has little to commend it and society is worse off because of its widespread, easy availablity. Among other things, much of it is extremely degrading to and objectfying of, women.

Whereas the depiction of men isn't?

And Jack 1551 is absurd and completely refuted by pretty every study on the issue ever done. Men are much more likely to be sexual predators than woman. Whether it is genetic, societal, or what is semi-irrelevant - thems the facts, even if you and your friends are statistical anomalies and what you wrote is true.

I don't know which applies here: 1) You know nothing, 2) You're trying to cover knowing nothing by skewing context, but without being particularly aware of that, 3) You've done no research and are talking out of your ass once again, or 4) You're being willfully stupid. Given your posting in the last couple of months it's not at all clear what you're up to, here.

Someone who would find me contemptible for being unreceptive to misogyny is someone whose respect I'm probably not all that interested in having in the first place.

You smear Sam, then smear him again by conjoining two words he used to mean something else entirely, and you do it yet again here by directly implying he's misogynistic. It's not a rhetorical approach deserving of respect.

And the idea that she consented to this seems preposterous to me.

That's not the legal standard -- and here I'm using the prosecutor's own description.(*) She said the charge required the defendants knowing the victim didn't have the capacity to consent.

Based on the linked article "preposterous" is strong. It's easier to imagine the girl consented to some of what happened, and was unconscious or incapable of consenting to other things. It seems unlikely she consented to everything that happened based on the article. If anything is clear it's that the two boys are immoral little shits. Just because a girl is capable of consenting doesn't mean you have sex with her.

Moreover, the legal element upon which their conviction turned was one calling for standards of judgment necessitating adulthood.

Hmm. I can't get behind this, SugarBear. A 16 year old boy should certainly know that this was wrong. We were all 16 once. Lassus will be soon. I can't imagine being unclear about this sort of thing at that age. And if you're saying that the Youtube culture (*) changed things to this extent... well, I can't agree.

Is your argument also that the easier access to porn in 2012 (I'm imagine high school boys all have it on their iPhones) clouds right and wrong for them?

I'm trying to understand your argument in order to give it a fair hearing.

(*) Sam brings up Jackass, but I don't recall any Jackass movie or tv episode in which a drunk girl was digitally penetrated, or even a non-drunk girl. I don't have the hysterical reaction to your arguments that others here do. But if I'm understanding them correctly, I would disagree.

Thanks for posting 1649. This stuff shouldn't be secret, or hidden. I posted 1650 before listening to it, but I'm not surprised, unfortunately.

If I needed to work to persuade a teen girl of the dangers of getting drunk at a party this is the kind of thing I'd consider playing to her. Understanding that some boys find rape hilarious might prove extremely sobering.

"She's deader than OJ's wife!"
[hysterical laughter]
"She's deader than Kaylee Anthony!"
[hysterical laughter]
"She's deader than Treyvon Martin!"
"You didn't see how they carried her!"
[laughter]
"How am I sick?"
"Because this girl is drunk."
[laughter]
"What if she got pregnant and gave birth to a dead baby?"
[laughter]

The hard part is teaching your children that the world can be a brutal, hideous place without turning them into paranoids. Very tough to do well.

If I walk through the center of Manhattan at night with fistfuls of hundred dollar bills and my eyes closed, I'm not "asking" to be robbed. The robbers don't get some lesser sentence because I placed myself at more risk than I should have. I didn't deserve the robbery.

At that extreme, yeah. Yeah, you probably did.

They have - thank god - never been the victim of sexual abuse and hopefully I will never have to have this conversation. But in a different context (bullying) I have been absolutely clear that being the victim of boorish behavior is not their fault and they shouldn't feel demeaned or diminished by having been the target of improper conduct. We talked about tools to avoid the situations, but I also was 100% clear to them that they shouldn't feel like it was their fault that they were bullied. I've talked about tools to avoid a sexual assault, but if, heaven forbid, they suffer what the Stubenville girl did, I would never, ever, ever suggest that it was their fault, even if they were drunk or started the night off flirtatiously. Simply put, being stupid is not justification to be used as a sex doll or in any way diminishes the responsibility of the perpetrators.

This is very wise and kindly, but completely misses the critical point, that if you're a woman, and if you get drunk in a party atmosphere, there is very likely to be at least one person there willing to have sex with your less than fully consenting self. Being stupid doesn't justify being raped, of course, but being stupid will significantly increase your chances of getting raped.

I had a cat with a weird tendency to moralize. When I was visiting my sister with my cat, two dogs were in the backyard rough-housing. When the cat saw this, she went out and told them to stop, and what was even stranger was they stopped.

re definitions, I worked on a project several months ago with several activists and, bless them, they were among the few interested primarily in facts. They were troubled, as I was, by the FBIs changing definition after 2011 of rape to include penetration by the tip of a finger. We were uncomfortably aware that this distinction would be scarcely noticed and then even more quickly, lost. It would make it appear that rape, which has been decreasing for decades in the U.S., was once again increasing.

That in turn would mean that it would remain difficult to get accurate statistics on rape. One reason accuracy is a huge issue is because the more we learn about rape the more likely it is that the majority of rapes are being committed by a small number of skillful offenders.

If that's the case, then you help women protect themselves differently than if you imagine that men, generally, are predators, and that women need primarily to be careful wrt date rape. It's not that these predators aren't also skilled date rapists, but that they're more likely to quickly abandon their pursuit of a woman who presents a difficult target, meaning that significant caution very early on while dating makes a woman much less vulnerable. It means police investigate differently. It means we really don't live in a 'rape culture', which ought to be good news for everybody.

I don't really have the time or gumption to read Nagel, but I did read the review Sam posted. And I think Nagel's wrong - at least in detail.

Science cannot quantify or describe the feelings I experience when I see my daughter.

I believe this to be false. And that in fact, materialism/reductionism can describe such feelings at least in principal.

That being said, I am not the kind of materialist atheist that likes to A HA people about their (very "real" feelings, etc.). I am reasonably certain that Free Will is an illusion... but unlike D&D we cannot just "disbelieve" it.

Clearly, some people have either never (a) personally known a female victim of sexual assault who trusted you enough to share details (unsurprising, given the comments) or (b) had whatever part of your soul responsible for empathy removed. I am baffled, disturbed and deeply offended by the arguments that minimize, exculpate and excuse to any extent the acts of the perpetrators in this case.

Also, it is stunningly clear that for all the talk of sexual liberation, not enough men on this board have had penetration of a sexual orifice to know what the #### they're talking about. The amount of "it's just fingering" is kind of mind-boggling. I guess y'all keep thinking about the sexual contact you've had with conscious, willing participants and wondering how the hell that could be uncomfortable. Remove the bolded words from the sentence, add in the complete lack of consent and you get the answer pretty ####### quickly. Stop and think for just a moment, how often you have had to change pace, speed, effort...all because there was a human being responding to you. Insertion of anything is awesome when done right, unpleasant when done wrong and horrible when done without consent. If there is any confusion about what consent looks like, I, as a lady, am more than willing to offer guidelines because clearly men are not talking about consent very well. (Also, you might ask yourself if you've raped someone. Think hard about it!)

And just to throw one last thing out there: this entire discussion is one big exhibit on rape culture.

And just to throw one last thing out there: this entire discussion is one big exhibit on rape culture.

I'm glad you're back, Devil.

I'm surprised any women bother with these threads at all. I personally had to add half a dozen folks to the ignore ranks to make the rest of the discussion tolerable. But then, that's privilege, in a way. I can just up and ignore it myself (literally, in this case, and more broadly in my daily life, and others don't have such an option.)

Presumably, actually being raped and the particular circumstances of the case are sufficient indications to the poor girl that she had a lapse in judgment. (Obviously, it goes well beyond being 'sufficient.' Also, to be clear, this isn't going to be the case in most rape situations. The vast majority of women who are raped are not exposing themselves to undue risks.) It's unnecessary for the court (or anyone else) to pull her aside and tell her that getting pass-out-drunk at a high school party is a bad idea.

I'm not particularly worried that hundreds of people and the 'liberal media' telling her repeatedly it wasn't her fault (not that it was her fault, it obviously wasn't) will embolden this young woman (or other young women) to go out and get fall down drunk at another high school party. If getting raped doesn't change her behavior (and serve as a cautionary tale to others), I'm not sure what words we could say to her would.

Generally, this is why I'm not worried about admonishing victims for their level of responsibility in the bad things that happen to them. They've had bad things happen to them. That should be more than enough.

BM, was this an attempt to answer my #1515? Because if it was, I appreciate the attempt, but the question was about what you tell your *daughters* (or would, if you had them), not your sons.

Just a comment, mostly regarding the "gee telling boys not to rape is not working". However while they are not as vulnerable (statistically) as girls wold be they can still be victimized. I have talked extensively with them about the do and don't if they are attacked or find themselves in various confrontations. I have also talked with them about substance abuse.

The world is a scary place with danger in it. Also a vast majority of people are good.

Well I'm glad you big strong men are up there to keep them little ladies safe and sound, Father.

Honest question Sam, what is the point of this comment? You are not responding to the substance, it is just random sarcasm (which is in surplus here and thus nothing special). I mean clever comments are fine and being an iconoclast is great (though you have gone to far here IMO), but really what is the point?

Oh and by the way I am physically smaller than 95% of the posters here, so "big strong" doesn't really fit, but nice try.

You smear Sam, then smear him again by conjoining two words he used to mean something else entirely, and you do it yet again here by directly implying he's misogynistic. It's not a rhetorical approach deserving of respect.

No, I implied that you were a misogynist. I confirmed for Sam that he might indeed be coming across as someone like you, after he expressed surprise when another poster informed him of such. I'm not sure which "two words" you're talking about, but since nothing you've said in this thread has been of any value whatsoever, I'm not all that interested in finding out, either.

Unless you'd like to wave a copy of "Iron John" at me and gibber a bit more, I think we're done here.

Like when liberals define "racist" as "someone who disagrees with me," all she did was change the "c" in "racist" to a "p" and suggest that maybe people with a different viewpoint from her on this issue are rapists themselves.

I'm not really seeing what value she added to the discussion. But go ahead and high-five.

Yeah, I've been refraining from getting into this, but here are my thoughts.

I had a one-finger rectal exam once by a completely competent and professional female doctor, and I've never felt more violated in my life. Hard to explain it as anything other than complete powerlessness, even though I could have stopped it at any time if I'd wanted to.

In most of the close female relationships I've had (romantic or friendship), the woman confided that she had been stalked, groped, raped, molested as a child or beaten up at some point by a male. In some countries, almost all women are raped at least once in their life, whether its by a stranger or their husband. To suggest that male victims of female sexual or physical violence is a remotely comparable issue is disgusting.

As for 16-year olds not having enough judgement to be tried as adults because of their pre-frontal cortex status, I don't believe there is any age where you're too young to know the difference between right and wrong (fetal alcohol kids and other with brain damage excluded). Some of that is inherent, but mostly its from what you see around you. That could be how your parents treat each other, what you see in your neighbourhood, at your school, or on the internet or on tv. A 16-year can be excused for not knowing their limits when it comes to alcohol or speed on the highway, but to suggest a 16-year old, or a 10-year old, doesn't have the capacity to judge whether ####### someone against their will is wrong is warped. Its bad, or at the very least, disengaged, parenting.

5' 3". I am small. I married up so the boys will both be taller than me (the 14 yo is an inch shorter and looking forward to looking down on dad). Irish and I suspect an ancestor had fun with Faerie Folk. I have a big mouth though, so I make up for it :)

#1581 The problem with what you're saying about young women and drinking isn't the knowledge that bad things can happen if you get hammered. It's very likely they aren't experienced with alcohol.

And it can sneak up on you (authorities believe Vodka was involved). I know my first party with alcohol left me quite literally under a table. Friends could not move me so that's where I spent the night.

And just to throw one last thing out there: this entire discussion is one big exhibit on rape culture.

That's a gratituous and vapid insult and Exhibit A in why anytime words like this get bandied about, and people like "Anonymous" start running their mouths, and the mobs come out with their signs and their protests, serious people are highly dubious that actual deliberative, reasoned justice will get done.

Clearly, some people have either never (a) personally known a female victim of sexual assault who trusted you enough to share details (unsurprising, given the comments) or (b) had whatever part of your soul responsible for empathy removed.

False on both counts, but keep making blind assumptions if you like.

I am baffled, disturbed and deeply offended by the arguments that minimize, exculpate and excuse to any extent the acts of the perpetrators in this case.

I'll try to live through your deep offense in this case.

Also, it is stunningly clear that for all the talk of sexual liberation, not enough men on this board have had penetration of a sexual orifice to know what the #### they're talking about.

Completely irrelevant to any discussion I've been following here.

The amount of "it's just fingering" is kind of mind-boggling.

An absolute misrepresentation of anything said by anyone on this thread, to my knowledge.

I guess y'all keep thinking about the sexual contact you've had with conscious, willing participants and wondering how the hell that could be uncomfortable.

Again, completely and categorically wrong and unrelated to any point being argued in this thread. But keep throwing #### a walls. Some of it might eventually stick.

If there is any confusion about what consent looks like, I, as a lady, am more than willing to offer guidelines because clearly men are not talking about consent very well. (Also, you might ask yourself if you've raped someone. Think hard about it!)

Well gosh. Thanks. Will there be charts and graphs for us poor, stupid men? You know how we love a pretty picture.

And just to throw one last thing out there: this entire discussion is one big exhibit on rape culture

Well of course it is. This conversation involves men discussing rape without having asked you for permission and appropriate parameters of acceptable speech, and some have even had the audacity to question some of the baseline assumptions of the public conversation to date, which means it *must* be "on big exhibit on rape culture," because to have an open conversation without a hall pass from you, "as a lady," is obviously the equivalent of supporting "rape culture." How could it not be, really?

I've just discovered that this site won't let me put two different posters on ignore at the same time...

Putting people with opposing viewpoints on ignore - the equivalent of covering your ears as a six year old and screaming "I'm not listening!" - is better than calling them rapists, I guess. Keep living in that bubble, Johnny.

There is, or should be, something scary about people who are hellbent on suppressing talk and discussion when it invades territory you think sacred. Indeed, thinking of subjects, or aspects of topics, as sacred should tell you something. That's the frightening proposition--not that someone has the audacity that you see (or misinterpret) as being beyond the pale. In fact, looking at it that way is pretty damn convenient--for you and yours, and it is a mentality that breaches other frontiers of subject, some which I bet you would never consider to be amiss.

Putting people with opposing viewpoints on ignore - the equivalent of covering your ears as a six year old and screaming "I'm not listening!" - is better than calling them rapists, I guess. Keep living in that bubble, Johnny.

Don't worry Ray, you weren't 1 of the 2

:-)

Keep living in that bubble, Johnny.

says the man whose posts tend to evidence an almost inconceivably narrow set of life experiences, but you are not without some sense of humor

It's funny, and very telling, that some here make no comment ever except when it's a plea, with veiled threats, for suppression of speech, unless it's discussed in a way they deem appropriate. Have you ever talked to people who feels they were accused or convicted of rape falsely or unfairly? There are some. I'm sure they can be fobbed off, but most all men in prison feel they've been the victim of abuse by females, starting with their mother and sisters. And DNA is showing that many who have been convicted of rape were wrongly convicted. How do you incorporate that in your moral calculus?

You know about everyone on the board referred to by "some people"? "Some people" ain't all that much of an assumption.

In this format, "some people" is problematic. It makes it difficult to address points if you have any but the most extreme position because the poster can always claim to have been talking about other people. We're all registered and as far as I can tell, nobody has dramatically changed a handle in this thread. Why not address the individual posters directly?

If DiaBC takes specific issue with my attitudes about rape, I'd like to have a discussion about it. If I'm being lumped in with others in a way that distorts my position ("it's just fingering" or "minimize, exculpate, or excuse"), I would like the opportunity to correct that misrepresentation.

And tried. And convicted. And I don't recall seeing anyone suggest that they shouldn't have been. The closest I've seen to that is some comments where SBB questions if the juvenile case was treated appropriately as juvenile cases ought to be, given that the defendant's names were made public. I think the legality there is that the names are only withheld if the defendants are under the age of 16, but I'm not a lawyer from Ohio, so it's a WAG.

Regardless, SBB's point there is hardly an attempt to justify behavior or suggest they shouldn't have been tried and convicted for their actions.

And tried. And convicted. And I don't recall seeing anyone suggest that they shouldn't have been. The closest I've seen to that is some comments where SBB questions if the juvenile case was treated appropriately as juvenile cases ought to be, given that the defendant's names were made public. I think the legality there is that the names are only withheld if the defendants are under the age of 16, but I'm not a lawyer from Ohio, so it's a WAG.

Regardless, SBB's point there is hardly an attempt to justify behavior or suggest they shouldn't have been tried and convicted for their actions.

Correct summary.

As to disclosure of the names, CNN noted in its story on the conviction that it only published them because everyone else was, from which a logical inference would be that something somewhere called for them to otherwise have been nonpublic. If Ohio permits publicity when the defendants are over 16, so be it, but that seems somewhat silly.

If Ohio permits publicity when the defendants are over 16, so be it, but that seems somewhat silly.

In GA, at least in the late 80s, the law was that any minor under the age of 16 had their record sealed, but that minors aged 16 or 17 were public domain offenses, but not considered to be legally adults. I say this as a long time juvenile delinquent.

Taken by itself, hard core porn has little to commend it and society is worse off because of its widespread, easy availablity. Among other things, much of it is extremely degrading to and objectfying of, women.

Some who have studied pornography from a feminist view point (Camille Paglia comes to mind) have concluded the exact opposite—that porn is empowering to both the female performers and to the greater female audience they “speak” for. When you think about it, one of the things that porn does is show that men can do nothing to women sexually that they can’t take. Indeed, the underlying subtext is that the female is superior when it comes to sex than men are. As many have many have made it plain, including many porn actresses, porn depictions revolve around the males because the males are the ones susceptible to being unable to perform. Unless you have an erection and ejaculation you ain't got nothing. They are the weaker sex as to sex. (They may have something to do why traditional rape involves physical violence or threat of it.) Very few women come off in porn movies. That’s a real advantage to performing. Males have to. They can’t fake it. (Poor things.)

Some who have studied pornography from a feminist view point (Camille Paglia comes to mind) have concluded the exact opposite—that porn is empowering to both the female performers and to the greater female audience they “speak” for.

But porn's about sex, and we all know chicks don't like sex. They only do it as a power trip over men. Obviously.

You're wrong. I have my views on exactly what the problem is. That was flushing the quarry to prove my point fully and precisely--as you just were suckered into doing.

So using a slang word for female gentalia to describe a lack of power is totally OK in a rape thread, because "meta trap"?

Gosh and I "fell for it" by pointing out (fairly nicely) how inappropriate it was? Sure, what6ever you need to tell yourself to feel better about things is fine I guess, but your word choice is still inappropriate in general and especially in this thread, and I can't possibly see how pointing that out makes me "the problem" or whatever you are trying to get at.

How exactly did I "prove" your point? In what way does my pointing out your comment as inappropriate show I am somehow a wimp?

Honestly there is no logic, no cause and effect anywhere in your statements, it is just word salad. Though I am sure there will be another word salad "proving" something from you as a follow up. I would love to hear a clear and concise description of what you are trying to say though, if you are capable of such a thing.